Jump to content

Dunal

Member
  • Content Count

    824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dunal

  1. My personal overall thoughts on FE difficulty: TL;DR: Simply increasing enemy stats/scaling (or quantity) doesn't really solve the issue. If I were to take a minimalistic approach to improving FE7's difficulty, it would be to lower potential EXP gains (or even growths), tone down some of the units with higher bases (relative to others), and then have enemies scale higher where it makes sense (as in, not have Tier 1 enemies show up in the last stages of the game) but not enough to the point where the weaker units are strongly impacted. Unless you feel HHM is fine in which case, for LHM and EHM... it would just be replicating what HHM does to be more challenging? I mean, I don't necessarily agree that HHM is fine, but if you know how it differentiates itself, then you've answered your own question. Otherwise, there are definitely ways to make HHM more meaningfully difficult which could also apply to LHM and EHM. I think it largely depends on whether you view FE as more of an RPG or as a strategy game. That will largely influence how much the difficulty will affect your enjoyment of the game.
  2. 1-F Turn 13 14-15 16+ Amount 12000 8000 5000 Yep, it's 13. Needless to say that it's a lot of BEXP going into part 3 (enough to give all your core units a couple levels or completely revive a few units from the bench) but does make efficiency important and nice for the DB where everyone gets free deployment. Of course, some maps do not have a turn count bonus. 2-E for instance gives a flat 10000 since the incentive is maximising combat EXP and loot during that map -- there's no penalty for not killing Ludveck. That BEXP then specifically goes to the Crimean Knights in 3-9 and helps out their level curve. Meanwhile, the Mercenaries are much more reliant on combat EXP to scale, which makes sense given their availability. They get almost no BEXP if you don't clear reasonably fast (while say, the DB still get 5K in 1-E no matter what, which is far more kind towards them).
  3. I don't think that the BK should be in too much danger in that map to begin with. Protecting Micaiah is the main objective here (unless you spend 4K... which I'm debating on increasing further -- but best that it exists in case Micaiah is under-levelled). Not for 3-6, but enemy hawks will now exist and you'll begin at the centre of the map surrounded on all sides. In 3-13 they'll be some Crimean troops added to the mix. It's mostly that the second dragon you fight appears almost immediately after the first, meaning that player phasing the first one will often leave you exposed to the second. I'm fine with the dragons being super powerful but they mostly exist on this map to teach the player how to deal with them later on. The second dragon also disrupts the flow of the map and halts progression for the most part -- it usually forces you to play defensive rather than advance closer to the boss early on. It's worth mentioning that BEXP amounts are being overhauled in the next release to better reward low turn counts and bonus objectives (while overall reducing the default BEXP for simply clearing a map). Overall it's a slight net gain of BEXP if you get a decent turn count on each map, but a fairly moderate boost if you clear fast and meet objectives, especially on maps where you're likely to be missing out on combat EXP to do so. For example, in 1-P a turn 6 clear is 130 total BEXP, a turn 7-8 clear is 70 BEXP, and only 30 after turn 8. Meanwhile, in 1-8, you now get 750 BEXP per prisoner that survives, but only 500 for clearing the map itself. And while you can get up to another 1200 based on turn count (which is still an increase from the original), this map has less emphasis on turns compared to protecting the prisoners. Overall it's an increase to BEXP for 2 out of the 3 armies (for most players) which will impact difficulty/scaling, but that will be accounted for. With that said, the Greil Mercenaries are going to have to work really hard for their BEXP since their overall (potential) BEXP per map is quite a bit lower now and their turn counts are stricter.
  4. The idea is that you can now take the chest + kill boss + escape with Laura on the same turn without missing anything too important. Some people would be in a position where they would steal the red gem while being set up to kill the boss + end the map the turn after... but couldn't kill the boss if they wanted the scroll (or have the mend staff) so would end up with a dead turn with not much to do. Or this lets you get both on the same turn so you can swap the mend or other weapons the turn after, without also wasting a turn. One is at the gate and the other is at the eastern cell (which previously had no defence unless you consider the few enemies above the ledge). This makes it notably more difficult to free all the prisoner's before Levail can murder them. Ragnell is still physical. What it does mean though is that even if the BK is still weak to hammers, its effective damage would be calculated based on the weapon's MT being reduced by 6 (they now only do 8 bonus damage to him, acting the same as it were a silver axe). So now, the Ragnell is definitely stronger. This means that I don't really need to remove his armor weakness. Cleave bows will still do a number on him, but I'll be changing those around in the two maps he's in (they'll be one in 1-E still but that's about it).
  5. I so far added bonus stat retention to non-shifted Laguz (on their description) since those are based on class. However, since gauges work on an individual basis I cannot specify in class descriptions. I could possibly add those to the growths section in the base panel. Also, I'm currently doing another pass on part 1/2 maps before I consider them completed. I was previously going to be making moderate changes to AI but I'm going to save those for the harder difficulty mode being done later on. Here the notable changes: MAP CHANGES: Let me know if you have any additional feedback on some of the current map design that may not be part of these changes.
  6. While shifted he gains 8 per turn and loses 4 per battle. Nailah's is arguably better (+15 per turn and -6 per battle) but both are really good. They aren't good gauges for low manning or soloing areas of the map (and you really want to avoid them taking ranged harass) but depending on the map you can keep them transformed indefinitely if you use them correctly. It's perfect for Volug since his part 3 maps are all very defend focused and choke-point heavy (and most enemies are 1 range) so he shouldn't need to fight too often each turn (and unlike the original game where he might need to pick up the slack, most of your units should be strong enough to enemy phase in his place if required). Well, with Bishops, she either has WTA or doesn't care much about Resire. With say, Leo/Fiona support (+5 DEF/RES) and pure water/barrier her weakness against magic can be negated quite a bit. Forge her a thunder tome as well (for stronger 1-2) and Sages/Bishops are easy for her to deal with. Strategists/Druids (and wind swords) are the only things she needs to avoid. Keep in mind that she can also have ~24 DEF by 1-E (again with supports). But yeah in part 3 she has plenty of Dracos to kill in 3-2 and 3-4 and actual dragons in 3-3 and 3-8 (Laguz-heavy maps like 1-8). Her offensive stats are pretty low but that doesn't really matter when she has so many effective targets. Even if you don't train her that much and use her specifically for nuking certain enemies then she's more or less an auto-deploy in some maps. Only reason she isn't in late part 1 is because you have Tormod.
  7. I've considered just removing the BK's weakness to certain weapons completely (no matter when he appears). The anti-armor weapons in 1-E were only really added to check Meg specifically (lowers her priority to be deployed given her performance in 1-8 and most of part 3). And the cleave bow in 1-9 used to be the blight bow (to give Micaiah another WTA target) before it was changed. I'm fine with the BK being really strong when you have him so long as he doesn't cheese the map (as in, you still have to play half decently when using him) but no matter what, you can't give him Celerity (for efficiency) or Nullify for that matter either (and him taking kill EXP mattering more than in the original) so removing weakness would be fine I'd say. As for the endgame fight with him, the hammer is arguably worse than the Ragnell since even if Ike has 12 more ATK (as it stands) with the hammer he no longer doubles. So the lack of enemy phase with the Hammer makes it a bit weaker overall. Meanwhile, don't be surprised if Volug is the next unit to be Laura'd. Turns out blossom + stat boosters makes him pretty insane in part 3 (which wouldn't be so bad if his gauge or SS weapon wasn't so good as well). It'll probably just result in the second energy drop being removed -- he's perfectly fine for standard usage so I otherwise wouldn't change him much (at least as part 1 is concerned). Just a bit of context for the next release if he does receive changes. Otherwise, I've seen that some people believe Ilyana needs a buff (as the most notable unit in need of one perhaps) but anyone who's played early builds of part 3 can unanimously agree that it isn't needed so... holding off on that. Also, I think a lot of people really underrate her in part 1 -- provoke strats in 1-5 and bolting snipes (and just being able to solo areas like the trio of dracos in 1-6-2) etc... Fair to say I think every unit is in a good place for part 1 (at least as of the next update) but feel free to discuss that if needed. Some units are going to be better for efficiency runs / LTC (like Jill vs. Meg) but that's to be expected (cue someone feeding her with every Ashera Icon / Talisman / Boots + Celerity and proving me wrong). Doesn't work through the barrier. I've thought of changing restore (and Boon) to 1-2 range in the past but decided against it. Tested some part 3 maps with that but positioning with Oscar (innate Boon) to counter statuses became a bit too simple as a result (what with Canto as well).
  8. Going to be updating them for the next release (and they'll be a lot more info in general). The BK got a slight buff in the next update but yeah he's still your overall best unit for 1-E regardless. 'Hard mode' kinda screws with that however. I think the concern was that he wouldn't scale for the remainder of the game but he gets stronger with every re-appearance. The BK fight at the end of the game isn't as easy as the original. That's a legitimate complaint. Definitely will be addressing that going forward including for later maps not yet released. I wish I could set move to 0 for individual enemies like in other games (probably is possible to implement but...). Instead, something a lot more subtle like 'Even level = Immobile' & 'Odd level = mobile' could work. I could then add extra dialogue (maybe in one of the houses in 1-1) to explain this (something like "Enemy soldiers assigned an even number will stand their ground, while those who are not are commanded to assault and capture you. Be careful!" that doesn't break the fourth wall... kinda). It's a little clunky perhaps but it gets the job done.
  9. This is how I've change it so far: I might as well keep it in-game but this should detract people from assuming that the hack is balanced for it. For what it's worth, standard 'ReDux' is now a 4-star difficulty if comparing to the original game. I've also updated the FAQ in the OP (should have done so a long time ago). Is there anything I should add to this that would be worth mentioning?
  10. Sent you a PM. Hopefully that helps. In other news, I've witnessed a couple people play "ReDux+" now and then criticising the hack for either being too difficult or having inflated enemy stats etc... Yeeaah keep in mind that it's entirely a placeholder currently (functioning the same as the original's hard mode... except 'worse' due to how enemy growths work now and additional relevance of WTA for magic etc...). Enemies are specifically tuned for 'Normal' or 'ReDux' (which factors heavily into doubling thresholds, matchups with WTA, unit durability/damage etc...). Someone pointed out that the Black Knight can get 2 or 3RKOed in 1-E(?) as opposed to 5 or 6RKO due to how enemies scale (combination of factors such as now having enough AS to double him, higher base ATK, Alondite not having WTA against anima or 'Aura' not working etc...). It's no secret that Tier 2 enemies have very high growths (but scale slowly throughout the game in base level -- for EXP purposes particularly in part 3) but HM/R+ with its hidden levels messes with that quite a bit. The default difficulty mode ('ReDux' replacing normal mode) is already harder than hard mode in the original (but without removing weapon triangle or inflating enemies relative to your own units) so I really suggest not playing it at all (unless you're aware it isn't going to be optimised for the hack and just want to mess with it). Just throwing that out there for the time being since I really should remove it outright in a future update. Or put a bigger disclaimer on it's in-game description. Some people have opted to jump straight to into it because they have to play the hardest mode and then getting frustrated. Keep in mind that I do still plan on creating a harder mode later on, but it won't have stronger enemies or reduced EXP etc... And will likely be a separate version of the hack altogether (which would have a bigger focus on enemy AI, map arrangements, weaponry etc... much more similar to say Conquest Hard vs. Lunatic I suppose -- FE10 just outright doesn't have a good hard mode).
  11. Her SPD is fine for what she's meant to be doing. 17 SPD avg at 20/1 is pretty respectable when say, Aran's SPD is the same at 18/10. Or Ike's at -/9. As long as she's not at risk of being doubled outside of speedier foes (swordmasters, falcos, cats) then she will be fine (since those aforementioned have lesser ATK). Yep. Still being tested though. The idea is that he now has Formshift but is incredibly squishy (with higher movement) when untransformed but really bulky (more-so than before) when transformed but with half movement. As in, some of his stats triple or quadruple in the latter. Needs to be properly balanced however (so that both forms are useful on any given map). Feel free to do so. Should be no worries in showing anything that might be 'incomplete' since any maps/content I've released (from this year onwards) is going to be fairly close to completion as it stands. So I'm completely fine with it. I take it you mean the Druids? They have really high DEF/RES but are rather sluggish with low movement (usually 5). Otherwise they're more powerful but less accurate than strategists. They usually have Daunt as their skill. That combined with their extremely high LCK (more than any other class) makes them fairly evasive as well so they can be tough to deal with. Light magic is typically a good option since it has double WTA. You see them much more in Part 3 and both Rhys and Mist (Florete) deal with them well enough. They're actually an enemy that doesn't double Rhys and he has the best RES in the game to boot. Nolan also gets a Killer Axe in 1-5 as well. You can imagine that the SKL boost makes it especially good on him. Either way, these changes to them should help them compete better with Meg. Keep in mind her performance in Part 3 as you would imagine it (Claymore/Brave Lance + Butcher...) and has that potential Laura support now (which actually makes 2-range viable on her as well).
  12. Honestly, Laura hasn't been changed that much so far. It just means that you might need to give her a Spirit Dust (or two) to make her MAG decent again (which is an opportunity cost between either Ilyana/Fiona or even a sword user, so in that sense at least there's that to take into account). Otherwise she's stuck with E tomes which isn't a huge issue either since a forged Light tome works fine. Should be in a state now where she can be great (but not game breaking, I don't think she ever quite was) with a couple resources. Not being able to promote in 1-5 changes things a bit as well and does mean there's only a single Master Seal is up for grabs in 1-6 (and as of the next update, there's all the more reason to give this to Nolan). Otherwise, she only has 1-7 to reach D rank for Resire (unless an Arms scroll is used) in time for 1-8's dragons. So there's a clear ripple effect here. Either way, the costs/resources it now takes to get Laura to reach the same state as before should be high enough where it's fine if you try and min/max her. Micaiah granting +5 MAG/SPD after part 1 does affect her more than anyone else though (aside from maybe Fiona) so that's something to look out for. Isn't as crazy as it might sound though (it's +10 damage in a round of combat and that's usually going to be player phase only -- and that's if you're able to position correctly). If she needs further changes then I may look into nerfing her earlier stats and increasing her Tier 3 promotion gains. Her lategame's pretty average no matter what; worse healer than certain others and low-ish RES/HP against other mages (particularly Anima). Exception may be 4-5 due to all the Druids + Dragons (and by extension 4-E-3). Here are the current planned changes for units in Part 1 for context: There are meant to be some moderate changes to Rafiel as well but those haven't been finalized yet.
  13. Yeah, same with generals in previous parts of the game (with some exceptions like Ludveck), they'll only be using their primary weapon type. Sure. I wouldn't have any objections to that. If she was consistently accurate with wind magic then that would probably be true. Needing to attack from 1-2 range can be a big deal against other 1-2 enemies that can easily two shot her. In fact, the 'Focus' skill for strategists was specifically provided so that wind magic could be nerfed for everyone else and Calill was the primary unit in mind for this.
  14. Canto's her class skill while Tormod's is Paragon (since they cannot be removed). They have the same base movement (6 > 7) and Celerity is definitely a high priority skill for Calill later on due to Canto. Enemy tier 2.5 classes have variable movement and skills. Axe Generals only have 5 movement for example but have innate Nihil and higher stats. While Lance/Sword Generals have 6 movement and Resolve/Fortune respectfully.
  15. CALILL If you're familiar with Fates she's basically Nyx. High offence and speed, shaky accuracy, low durability. However, Calill has rather great HP so she'll always avoid getting one-shot and does have decent evasion considering that she negates 'Focus' through Nihil. She's also the only mage in the game with 'Canto'. That's her selling point beyond offence. Being able to retreat to safety after attacking results in her frailness to be a minimal problem. Her RES is average but she does have almost full magic triangle control as well. Her main downside is still availability, but unlike the original game she shouldn't be too under-levelled when re-joining in late part 3. It helps that Soren and Ilyana have completely different niches; Soren being a buffer/artillery mage and Ilyana being a low-range tank.
  16. Enemies are really aggressive/threatening and you'll also be flanked each side by fliers. Some enemies also work like Conquest CH10 where they'll prioritise going for the defend point if unprotected (or attempting to kill someone who's on it). You do have a decent number of fliers to rotate around in order to deal with them, but you can't really focus on any particular area of the map. Occasionally Elincia/Leanne (Sacrifice) will be occupied with restoring sleep/silence as well. There's a lot going on (to the point where successfully going for bonus objectives/loot is incredibly tough -- Meteor!Calill is the "easy" way to cheese the map and even that's very high risk).
  17. 2-E is designed so that you basically need the Crimean Knights to swoop in and clear out enemies faster than they spawn. Ludveck is surrounded by Crossbows/Horseslayers so you can't cheese the map with a few units either. Ludveck himself has a Tempest Blade (that drops as well) with capped DEF, 96 HP, but low RES. Calill or Heather are essentially required to kill him (they have WTA keep in mind). There's also a miniboss on the map (bottom left) that has huge incentive to kill as well (drops Meteor) which you can then use to kill Ludveck over 5 or 6 turns (or less with Leanne). But you need to kill this sage before turn 5 otherwise you're running out of its uses. So even if you cannot get the Master Crown from Ludveck (the only one in the game until 3-12) then you can at least snipe the Tempest Blade (which is nice for Makalov in 3-9 if you grab it this way with Calill). Speaking of which, Makalov's niche is his biorhythm type plus insane growths (430% total which is fourth best in the game behind Elincia, Sanaki and Micaiah). As for Danved, you'll want to rescue drop him since there won't be much downside to doing so. Otherwise it's difficult enough to survive. Going to be a fun map, I promise! Volug and Nailah now have steal untransformed by the way. It does mean that in part 4 you'll have the option to steal on every map.
  18. You're missing the point. Lucius outperforms Canas in offense before promotion with a Lightning (and then are the same post-promotion IF Canas is doubling which he can only really do with Flux). However, Lucius can actually still double beyond his base tome so actually has an option to secure 1RKOing if need be. It's a pretty minor point since Shine doesn't appear until later (possibly around the time they're promoting) but the point is that it's essentially an immediate +4 ATK which counteracts Canas' ability to enable doubling slower enemies. Both are likely killing if doubling regardless since enemies (and their RES) are pretty bad in this game, but... ... clearly isn't true aside from the circumstance where Canas has promoted (early on) and Lucius hasn't. C isn't low. One rank away from using any staff except Fortify or Warp. Otherwise MAG is only other important factor for staves (movement aside) and Lucius doesn't exactly lack in that regard. Also the argument that "unit X is bad because I'm using Y" isn't a great one. You could easily argue that Canas is "bad" because Pent exists or that Marcus and/or other prepromotes can collectively stomp the game regardless. Spending a Guiding ring on Serra for example is purely preference for the long term and neither unit invalidates eachother. I'm not even advocating Lucius > Canas or vice versa, they're more-or-less even as far as units goes (same with Erk). One's a better player phase nuke and the other has some enemy phase potential with an earlier possible promotion. Either way comparing the two isn't strictly necessary since having two units that target RES isn't inherently flawed (in that sense you're getting more mileage from Lucius than you are Rebecca/Wil/Lyn for player phase purposes, who then ends up with utility later on... keep in mind that enemies barely have RES, so unlike the aforementioned Lucius or Erk etc... are dealing high damage no matter what). The former is hyperbole (if comparing to Rebecca/Lyn for example) since enemies usually either inaccurate or weak in this game. I don't really understand your latter point if we're strictly comparing him to Canas. Which is again, different from other units who target DEF instead. It doesn't help that Canas doesn't get an "upgrade" to Flux (meaning that his ATK increases quite slowly throughout the game in comparison -- no MAG on promotion either). Either way, you do understand that wasn't my whole argument to begin with. Regardless, Lucius =/= bad if that's what you're trying to argue. He's fairly decent overall. Same with Erk/Canas and they're all fairly interchangeable depending on what you value more (availability, damage/utility or bulk). Lucius himself might as well be an speedy archer who targets RES in context to how he's used (for player phase) as an absolute minimum (ignoring matchups against enemy magi and his possible 1-range against them, plus staff utility), which happens to be inherently more palatable than certain other units. Also, to go back on-topic, Lowen's pretty great just by virtue of being a cav. Maybe not quite as good as Sain/Kent (with Lyn mode) but not far off. Even Isadora is decent/good due to her class.
  19. I think the point being made is that "Lucius is bad because Light magic is bad" is a bit of a pitfall. Light vs. Flux is the difference in 3 MT which is pretty negligible since Lucius is doubling consistently before promotion whilst Canas isn't. Then after promotion in cases where Canas is doubling, their damage amount is pretty much the same (unless Lucius is using Shine, in which his will be higher) since Lucius has +3 MAG if both promote at LV15, while Lucius also gets C staves rather than E. What Canas has going for him is a level lead (possibility for an early promotion) and is bulkier (while also having Nosferatu as a situational option). Luna is incredibly niche since it weighs Canas down and enemies rarely have RES. And even then, both can be used (using Lucius + Canas is usually strictly better than say, Rebecca/Wil + Canas for example, in the context of a player phase unit) and you can use a Guiding Ring on Lucius for an immediate healer rather than promote Serra/Priscilla. Using two of Erk/Lucius/Canas is not inherently flawed.
  20. Conquest and FE7 has objectively the better designed hard modes IMO. Mostly because it actually feels like the game's design/balance was made with their harder modes in mind. I don't get that vibe from other FEs (from FE6's hard mode bonuses to certain units, or most of FE12's cast having considerably awful bases for what you're up against etc...). With that said, worst is going to be Awakening if you're discussing Lunatic (although its hard mode itself is too easy to break due to the game's mechanics -- there's never a middle ground when it comes to this game's difficulty... which is probably why Lunatic feels like the developer's desperation attempt to make the game difficult in the first place. Between pair-up mechanics and the EXP formula, there is never going to be a middle ground).
  21. I do plan on submitting this once again for a latter map. The candidates are likely to be either 1-8, 2-2 or 3-1. 1-E might not be the best candidate in terms of difficulty or length. Will probably end up being 1-8 (with all units auto-levelled) so the host has some degree of options as to who they want to use. Might depend on who that is though (and what they've played previously). As for an update, I will likely be delaying the next release until the FEE3 showing this year. Will be midway Part 3 along with plenty of changes to previous maps and balancing.
  22. Well then let's just agree to disagree since 'balance' and 'unfairness' are really not what I'm contesting at all. It wasn't perfectly balanced in FE7 and I'm not deputing that. I however wouldn't say it's intended to be 'unfair' either (and the core of its design) and it's missing the point I'm trying to make. I suppose the best way to summarize it was that heavy weapons were not designed to double on most units (without crippling slower units even more). While lighter weapons are only designed to double in the hands of high SPD units. Does that explain it? It's not "unfair" in that context since the intended design would be: What I am saying is that the mechanic was well designed (when balanced correctly) especially if undergone some further refining/tuning. It's intended design had good purpose. I have yet to see you really comment on its benefits or deputing that as opposed to picking apart specific balancing. In which, I'm not denying that those exist in some cases, but basing your entire argument on that is a bit short-sighted. I'm trying to look at both sides here (as in, I'm not denying it could use improvement) rather than discrediting it completely. If Three Houses chooses to adapt on it then that could be interesting assuming its balanced well. I'm just of the mind that the mechanic had its pros/cons and that it was well intentioned in order to boost slower units (regarding weapons that units are not typically meant to double with). Fates also had some good ideas to help resolve this, but by forcing slowing units to suffer the same penalties (such as someone like Arthur losing 5 AS with a Hand Axe, often causing him to be doubled). The more I think of it, the steel weapon model Fates used was really good though, and should have been used more. I wouldn't mind that mechanic being the entire basis for WT on weapons (reducing capability to double but not susceptibility to being doubled). Is that a fair assessment? The reason to bring this up is because Three Houses has the possibility of bringing the mechanic back. It's definitely worth discussing how the mechanic worked well in some cases instead of writing it off as objectively bad. It definitely was designed with a purpose -- not to be randomly "unfair" without any further context.
  23. @Shadow Mir Read my previous post... Hard focusing on the actual balance isn't really discussing the benefits of the mechanic (and/or the main factor to discredit it). And the only reason why I compared Florina/Dorcas is completely under the context of the slower unit not being made worse by heavy weaponry (allowing such units to exist in the first place -- Dorcas isn't a great unit, but he'd be so much worse in a game with no AS penalties). Whether it's him, or Heath, or Oswin etc... Is besides the point. The system isn't there to specifically penalize someone like Florina, it's more to make low SPD units better (by allowing them to use strong weaponry without them being doubled). Whether that was perfectly balanced in FE7 (it wasn't) isn't factoring why the system is there. Only that it's "unfair". Honestly, flat SPD penalties would work just the same if they worked like Steel Weapons in Fates. Where they only reduce your doubling capability rather than increasing the enemy's capability to double. It didn't technically reduce your SPD. CON works the same way in practice (or how it's intentionally designed). Isadora isn't exactly a good example since she's a perfectly decent unit that is actually rather well designed for a mounted (and/or prepromoted) unit. She's the worst Paladin (not really saying much due to the inherent quality of them) but that's only because of her availability. Her base SPD of 16 is +5 on Marcus while he has +5 CON. If it weren't for her availability (being the reason she's worse than others, especially Marcus) having +5 SPD is strictly better because it means she has higher AS with lighter weapons, but (at worst) the same AS with heavier weaponry (with her higher SPD growth creating a gap with heavier weaponry later on). Which is really the whole idea behind CON (stronger weapons being normalized between faster/slower units... with the faster units having the option to have often more offence with lighter weaponry, in return for potential retaliation damage on player phase...). Still, she's an above average unit so I really don't think her CON is a design flaw. It's more that the other paladins don't sacrifice enough to be mounted.
  24. All really based on individual balancing rather than arguing against the purpose for why CON exists or the benefits it inherently provides. Whether females are treated unfairly is besides the point (and often times untrue in the first place, because it counterbalances other statistics or is meant to -- IS didn't arbitrarily give units low CON without balancing other factors, with Florina being a good example). Most females are also statistically treated unfairly when it comes to STR or DEF as well (on average), but that isn't an inherit flaw with STR/DEF itself. And for the most part they're not. Units like Rebecca aren't bad because of her CON, but because her base SPD doesn't make up for it (only her growth does in the long term). Nino's higher SPD to make up for her CON is negated by her poor availability. Isadora vs. Marcus is a case of availability (where otherwise her SPD would counterbalance her CON really well). Florina vs. Heath may be a better example, but class doesn't matter in the context of the doubling mechanic and how weaponry effects that. Making low SPD units more viable is exactly what CON helps to accomplish, especially when tuned well (and don't get me wrong, CON/WT on each unit/weapon is not tuned perfectly, which is entirely what you're focusing on rather than the core of the mechanic). It helps them specialize in stronger weaponry without gutting their durability. The entire purpose of CON is exactly the same as flat weight except that it doesn't make slow units even slower (while also making weapon selection variable between each unit). You can argue as to whether you think females are treated unfairly, or Florina's CON is too low, or Heath's is too high, or X weapon is too heavy etc etc... And some of those may not necessarily be untrue (though still highly debatable since Florina is the better unit in the grand scheme of things)... but that's an entirely different debate. If you look at Awakening or Tellius, slower units are often bad because faster units can use literally any weapon they want and still double. Offensively, your faster units are much better as a result, and defensively your slower units get the short end of the stick because fast enemies with strong weapons will double them (keep in mind that CON affects enemies as well). CON was/is a rather elegant solution in making slower units comparatively viable by normalizing offense and durability (since AS affects both) by virtue of weapon selection. Fates had the next best solution by making some weapons impossible to double with (which only benefits slower units) but didn't have the nuance that CON could have with its design/balancing (not to say the execution was perfect in that regard). Fates was also still flawed in that "heavy" weapons (like steel weapons) punished slower units equally to faster ones. CON's objective on the other hand was to differentiate that (if ideally tuned). And CON isn't exactly perfect. A hard cap of -5 SPD would probably be fine. And lowering only AS (as opposed to avoid as well) might also work. Are there ways to improve it? Sure. But don't discredit the entire mechanic just because some units are affected more than others from it (which is often just part of their design). It's less of a punishment of faster units (since flat weight like FE3 or Echoes would affect them the same way more or less), but more of a boon to slower units (it doesn't crush their already low AS). However, slower units would still have the drawback of not being able to double with lighter weapons (meaning there's still obviously an advantage to having high SPD no matter what your CON is), making those more suited to faster units. Not when enemies are also weighed down a lot and Florina's SPD is so much higher than the average enemy where she'll still double most of them. And it's not a bad thing if she doesn't double all of them. Again, why is not doubling in some cases inherently bad design? Just because a unit doesn't double everything with a heavier weapon, doesn't make the system bad. Flat SPD penalities would do the exact same thing as well, just that the slower (but higher CON) units aren't screwed over by using the same weapon. Keep in mind that the difference here is that fast units being weighed down usually only effects their offense. While slow units being weighed down affects their durability. Now... you could argue "why not just buff the slower units" or even "why do slow units exist in the first place?" because A) It over-emphasises on how important SPD generally tends to be and B) It homogenises the design of each unit. Sure, you could just balance low AS units by giving ridiculous stats in other areas but that's a messy way of doing it. CON isn't necessarily the perfect solution at all, but it was a reasonably effective one, if not executed perfectly.
  25. Low CON is worked around by having higher SPD as a counterbalance (when tuned appropriately). Or selectively targeting slower enemies. Or securing kills with the stronger weapon (is it really the end of the world if a unit doesn't double with a particular weapon or against certain enemies?) Honestly the whole idea that units need to double to be good/useful has always been questionable design when it comes to FE (it's removing additional nuance or decision making while making low SPD units generally worse off). And saying that a mechanic is assumed to be flawed because it helps balance low SPD units vs. high SPD units (which is entirely what CON does) isn't really true either. Low CON doesn't need to be "worked around". It's like arguing that lower movement units cannot "work around" their lower movement compared to cavalry or fliers (when preferably there would be enough draw backs to having higher movement... not usually the case in GBA FE but that's discussing balance). Low CON units generally have high SPD + growth (and high SPD growth widens the gap between low SPD units as the game goes on, regardless of weapon usage -- Florina's AS with a Steel Lance widens compared to Dorcas with a Steel Axe for example, since the penalties remain almost static but her base AS increases much faster). Focusing on the balancing (for very specific weaponry) is still missing the point of why the mechanic exists in the first place. Those weapons are tied to individual units however so they don't have anything to do with how certain weapons effect units in regards to balancing SPD. Durandal might as well have the description "lower SPD by 7" because it's specific to Eliwood. Doesn't really have anything to do with CON or why the mechanic is there (nerfing high SPD). Wait, what? In Mystery of the Emblem a Steel Axe had a flat SPD penalty of -9 or Javelin had -20. I am speaking in the context of the -4 AS penalty I mentioned (for steels, in the example I gave which is pretty reasonable for FE7) should flat penalties exist once more. Under that context, the example I gave with Florina and Dorcas holds true. Dorcas becomes worse and Florina becomes a lot better. All flat penalties do is benefit high SPD units (since they also affect enemies keep in mind), while CON actually manages to even out the power level between both types of units by making slower units innately better with stronger weapons (this helps slower units be good outside of over-tuning their other stats). Florina is still a much better unit than Dorcas despite their CON because the mechanic is rather well balanced as a whole, with Florina still benefiting from using steels to finish off enemies on player phase or occasionally doubling slower units especially later on. Low CON obviously doesn't "screw over a unit" at all. In fact, lower movement is a far worse trait if we go by most games. I also don't understand how stat caps have much relevance in terms of balance when, if they are reached, are fairly overkill especially when it comes to SPD in FE7 (and only ever apply strictly in the lategame). Base SPD + growth are pretty consistently in favour of low CON units which is the main factor. Because Vaida doesn't double with any weapon (for the most part) vs. much faster units who double with most weapons (does Florina really have a problem doubling a lot of enemies with a Javelin by the time Vaida joins? Not really).
×
×
  • Create New...